Holding

Revisors are entitled to the Superintendent Grade II pay scale only from the date of the 5‑August‑1980 notification, not retrospectively from 23‑January‑1975.

Summary

The respondents, employed as Revisors in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, claimed that they were entitled to the pay scale of Superintendent Grade II retrospectively from 23 January 1975. The original 1973 Service Rules placed Revisors on a lower pay scale, and only a notification dated 5 August 1980 redesignated them to the Superintendent Grade II scale. The High Court had allowed the respondents' claim, treating the 1973 Rules as effective from 23 January 1975 and extending the higher pay retrospectively. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the language of the 1973 Rules, the amendment made by the 1980 notification, and the constitutional requirement of presidential approval under Articles 229(2) and 231. It held that the higher pay could only take effect from the date of the 5 August 1980 notification, not from 1975. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the respondents' writ petition, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether Revisors are entitled to the Superintendent Grade II pay scale retrospectively from 23 January 1975.
Whether the amendment made by the 5 August 1980 notification can be given retrospective effect to a date prior to its issuance.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 229(2), s. Article 231

Subjects

pay scaleretrospective revisionservice rulesRevisorSuperintendent Grade IIConstitutional Articles 229 and 231judicial reviewhigh court employees

Judgment

)

., PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH A
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
v.
SUNDER SHAH KAPOOR AND ORS.

JANUARY 8, 1997
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, J.J.)
.,.

Se1vice Law: Punjab and Hwyana High Cowt Establishment (Appoint-
ment and Conditions of Se1vice) Rules, 1973: Rules 26, 27 and Schedule I.
c
Pay scale-Retrospective revision-Pemzissibility of-Revisors in High
Cowt granted higher pay scale of S11pe1intendent Grade II vide notification
dated 5-8-1980-He/d: their claim for grant of higher pay scale retrospectively
from 23-1-1975 when recmitment !Ules were notified, not tenabl~Punjab and
Hmyana High Cowt Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Se1vice) D
Rules, 1952-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 229(2) and 231.

The respondents were employed as Revisors in the High Court in
which initially there were posts of Senior Translator and Junior Trans-
lator which were governed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Estab-
·Iishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1952. These E
rules were substituted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Estab·
lishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 in which
the posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator were designated as
Revisor and Translator respectively. The 1973 Rules were issued vide
notification dated 23-1-1975. Pay scale for both Revisor and Translator F
was the same but Revisor was given special pay in addition. However, the
pay scale for these posts were revised upward retrospectively w.e.f. 1-
1-1978. Schedule I to the 1973 Rules was substituted by the revised
Schedule vide notification dated 5-8-1980. In the substituted Schedule the
posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator were mentioned. Against
the post of Senior Translator, a 'Note' was made which stated; " Redesig- G
nated as Revisors and recommended the pay scale of Superintendent
·'i Grade II". After obtaining the approval of the President of India as
required under Articles 229(2) and 231 of the Constitution of India, the
revised scales were made effective vide notification dated 23-1-1986. The
respondents-Revisors were given the revised pay scale of Superintendent H
101
'
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A Grade II plus Special payw.e.f. 5-8-1975 instead of from 5-8-1980. The High
· Court allowed the petition. Hence this appeal.

The CJUestion before this Court was whether the respondents-·
.,
Revisors were entitled to the revised pay scale of Superintendent Grade II
retrospectively w.e.f. 23-1-1975 instead of from 5-8-1980.
B
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment
(Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, as originally issued
on 23-1-1975, Revisors ,had not been placed in the same pay scale as
C Superintendent Grade II. TI1e Revisors were given the pay scale of Super-
intendent Grade II only by Notification dated 5-8-1980 whereby Schedule
I of the 1973,Rules was substituted. The Revisors, therefore, can claim the
· pay scale of Superintendent. ,qrade II with effect from 5-8-1980 only and
they were correctly given the said scale with effect from that date. The High
D Court was in error in holdiilg' tltat the Revisors-were entitled to pay scale
of Superintendent Grade II with effect from 23-1~1975. The benefit of the
pay scale of Superintertdent Grade II under the notification dated 5~8-1980'
cannot be extended to Revisors from a date earlier than the date of the
issue of the said notification. (1.05-H, 106-A, D-E]

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1248 of
1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.92· of the Puniab &.
Haryana High C,ourt in L.P.A. No. 615 of 1992.
.,.
F ' '
Rajinder Sachar, Rana Ranjit Singh, S. Srinivasan, for the appellant.

D.V. Sehgal, Sr. Adv., Anant Palli, Ms. Rekha Palli, M. Monika
Gusain and Hari Om Yaduvanshi for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of. the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The short question that falls for consideration in
this appeal is whether the respondents who were employed as Revisors in
the High Court of Puhjab and Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the
High Court') and were given the pay scale of Superintendent Grade lI with
H effect from August 5, 1980 are entitled to the said scale with effect from
)
/

P&HHIGHCOURTv. S.S. KAPOOR[AGRAWAL,.T.] 103

January 23, 1975. A
In the High Court the conditions of service of the employees were
earlier governed by the High Court Establishment (Appointment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952
Rules'). Under the 1952 Rules there were posts of Senior Translator and
Junior Translator. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Pay Com- B
mission constituted by the State of Punjab in 1968, when the High Court
Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Rules') were made by the High Court,
the posts of Senior Translator and .T unior Translator were designated as
Revisor and Translator respectively. The 1973 Rules were issued vide C
Notification dated January 23, 1975 and were published in the Chandigarh
Gazette on February I, 1975. Under Rules 26, 27 read with Schedule l of
the 1973 Rules Revisors were placed in the scale of Rs. 225-500 with a
special pay of Rs. 50 per month and Translators placed in the scale Rs.
225-500. Since Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Scheduled I, II and Ill of 1973
Rules, related to salaries, allowances and pension, etc. of the employees, D
the same were sent for approval of the President of India as required under
Clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution of Indi~.
The approval of the President of India was received vide letters dated
September 25, 1985 and October 30, 1985. In the meanwhile, the pay scale
of Rs. 225-500 had been revised to Rs. 600-850 with effect from January l, E
1978 and by Notification dated August 5, 1980 Schedule I of the 1973 Rules
was substituted. In the substituted Schedule the posts of Senior translator
and Junior Translator were mentioned. In the remarks column against the ·
post of Senior Translator the following note was made :

"Note : Redesignated as Revisors and recommended the pay scale F
of Superintendent Grade II i.e. Rs. 800-25-850-30-1000-100/40-
1200/50-1400."

Similarly, as against the post of Junior Translator the following note
was made in the remarks column :
G
"Redesignatcd as Translators and recommended the pay scale of
Assistants i.e. Rs. 570-1080 & also the selection Grade."

After receiving the approval of the President of India, Notification
dated January 23, 1986 was issued by the High Court wherein it was H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A notified that Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A) and 3 shall come into effect
with effect from September 25, 1985. Feeling aggrieved by the said
Notification dated .January 23, 1986, a number of employees working as
Re.visors and Translators in the High Court, including the respondents who
were working as Revisors, filed a Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 2363 of 1986)
B in the High Court wherein they claimed that Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I
I(A) and 3 should be brought into effect.with effect from March l, 1974,
the date of enforcement agreed to by the then Chief Justice while approv-
ing the draft rules on the administrative side. The said Writ Petition was
disposed of by the High Court by judgment dated August 6, 1987. The High
Court held that in letter dated September 25, 1985 conveying the approval
C of the President of India to Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A) and III of
the 1973 Rules, it is stated that the Rules come into effect from the date
of issue and since the 1973 Rules were issued by Notification dated January
23, 1973, 1975, the said Rules came into effect with effect from January 23,
1975 and all amendments to the Rules made between January 23, 1975 and
D September 25, 1985 were to take effect from the respective dates on which
such amendments were issued from time to time. The High Court, there-
fore, quashed the Notification dated January 23, 1986 and directed that
January 23, 1975 be treated as the date of enforcement of the 1973 Rules
and that the pay and allowances of the petitioners in the said Writ Petition
should be fixed on the basis that the 1973 Rules came into force on January
E 23, 1975.

Thereafter the High Court issued an order dated November 17, 1987
whereby the pay of Revisors was fixed as under :
-r
F Date Scale of Pay
(i) 23.1.1975 Rs. 225-15-360/20-500 plus
Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay
(ii) 1.1.1978 Rs. 600-20-700-25-850/30-1000-40-1080-
40-1120 plus Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay
G
(iii) 5.8.1980 Rs. 800-25-350-30-1000-40-1200/50-1400
plus Rs. 50 p.m. as Special pay
r-
Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated November 17, 1987, the
respondents filed another Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 2359 of 1988) in the
H High Court which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court
)

P&HHIGH COURTv. S.S. KAPOOR [AGRAWAL,J.] 105
I
by judgment dated January 28, 1992. The learned single Judge held that A
under the 1973 Rules Revisors have been granted the same scale and
special pay as admissible to Deputy Superintendents (who were sub-
sequently designated as Superintendents Grade II) and, "therefore, the
respondents who had filed the Writ Petition in the High Court are entitled
to the same pay scale as Deputy Superintendent (Superintendent Grade B
II) with effect from January 23, 1975. Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No.
615 of 1992) filed by the appellant against the said judgement of the learned
single 1udge has been dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High
Court by its order dated August 27, 1992. Hence this appeal.

By order dated November 17, 1987, the respondents, as Revisors, C
have been given the pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 which is also the pay scale
of Superintendents Grade II plus Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay with effect
from August 5, 1980. The question is whether the respondents are entitled
to claim the same pay scale as that of Deputy Superintendent (Superinten-
dent Grade II) with effect from January 23, 1975. The High Court has held D
that they are so entitled on the view that under the 1973 Rules they have
been given the same pay scale as that of Deputy Superintendent (Superin-
. tendent Grade II). This view is, however, not borne out by Schedule I of
the 1973 Rules as originally issued vide Notification dated January 23,
1975. Under Schedule I of the 1973 Rules, as originally notified, the post
of Deputy Superintendent mentioned at serial No. 2 of the post in the E
Group of non- Gazetted ministerial Establishment was placed in the scale
of Rs. 275-15-410/20-550 and in the revised grade of Rs. 350-25-500/30/650
with effect from June 6, 1972. The post of Revisor was mentioned at ~erial
No. 8 in the non-Gazetted Ministerial Establishment and the pay scale
fixed for the said post was Rs. 225-15-360/20-500. There was a further p
provision for special pay of Rs. 50 p.m. for the post of Revisor. It would
thus be seen that in the 1973 Rules, as originally issued on January 23, 1975,
Revisors had not been placed in the same pay scale as Deputy Superinten-
dents, Revisors were given the Pay scale of Superintendent Grade lI only
by Notification dated August 5, 1980 whereby Schedule I of the 1973 Rules
was substituted and against the post of Senior Translator it was mentioned G
in the remarks column : "Senior Translators have been redesignated as
Revisors in the pay scale of Supdt. Grade II". This would show that till the
Notification dated August 5, 1980 was issued Revisors had not been given
the same pay scale as Superintendent Grade II. Revisors, therefore, can
claim the pay scale of Superintendent Grade II with effect from August 5, H
\
\

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A 1980 only and they were correctly given the said scale with effect from that
date under order dated November 17, 1987. The High Court was in error
in quashing the said order and in directing that Revisors are entitled to
pay scale of Superintendent Grade II with effect from January 23, 1975.

In order to hold that Revisors are entitled to the same pay scale as
B Superintendent Grade II with effect from January 23, 1975, the learned
single .I udge has placed reliance on the earlier judgment of the High Court
in Civil Writ Petition No. 2369 of 1986 wherein it was directed that the
1973 Rules shall be treated to have come into effect from January 23, 1975.
The said Judgment lays down that the 1973 Rules, as issued by Notification
C dated January 23, 1975 would come into force with effect from January 23,
1975. It also lays down that all amendments to the 1973 Rules made
between January 23, 1975 and September 25, 1985 were to take effect from
the respective dates on which such amendments were issued from time to
time. Since the amendment in the Schedule I to the 1973 Rules was made
by Notification dated August 5, 1980, it can only come into force with effect
D from the date of issue of the Notification dated August 5, 1980 and not
with effect from .January 23, 1975 as held by the learned single Judge in
the impugned judgment. The benefit of the pay scale of Superintendent
Grade II under the Notification dated August 5, 1980 cannot be extended
to Revisors from a date earlier than the date of the issue of the said
E Notification.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the judg-
ment of the learned single Judge as well as order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order
dated Augu.~t 27, 1992 pa.~sed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 615 of 1992 as
F well as judgment of the learned single Judge dated January 28, 1992 passed
in Civil Writ Petition No. 2359 of 1988 are, therefor<.:, set aside and the
Writ Petition filed by Lhe respondents is dismissed. But in the circumstan-
ces 1here is no order as to costs.

Y.S.S. Appeal allowed.